FCC Web Documents citing 1.743

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-473A1.txt
  • or remove uncertainty. The Commission has wide discretion within this framework to determine whether a Declaratory Ruling is necessary. The Commission generally does not have the expertise or resources to resolve questions of state or federal law outside its principal area of jurisdiction; as a result, it is generally more efficient to allow other forums to resolve such matters. Section 1.743(a) of the Commission's Rules requires applicants to sign their applications. When the applicant is a corporation, an officer or duly authorized employee must sign the application. Generally, corporations are bound by the statements and declarations made by its agents within the scope of their employment and with the actual or apparent authority of the corporation. We believe that a determination
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-116A1.txt
  • Champion's actions fraudulent. 12. In addition, MMHG argues that we erred, in our March 2 Order, in declining to determine whether Clarklift's office manager had authority to assign its license for Station WYE538. MMHG asserts that we erred in concluding that we did not have jurisdiction to determine whether the subject Assignment of Authorization was properly signed, pursuant to Section 1.743(a) of the Commission's Rules. Specifically, MMHG argues that our conclusion in our March 2 Order missed the mark. MMHG contends that the Commission has often ignored technicalities of state law in determining if an applicant meets the Commission's policy goals. MMHG also argues that the Commission's has a duty to determine whether the grant of an application is in the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-734A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-734A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-734A1.txt
  • Rcd at 3969, para. 53. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49, 1.741-1.749. See id. at § 1.49. Item (e) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.743. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973, para. 50. See id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3968, para. 34; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20543, para. 15. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973-74, paras. 51, 54; see also id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3957-59, paras. 6-12 (describing efforts of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1390A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1390A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1390A2.txt
  • Rcd at 3969, para. 53. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49, 1.741-1.749. See id. at § 1.49. Item (e) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.743. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973, para. 50. See id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3968, para. 34; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20543, para. 15. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973-74, paras. 51, 54; see also id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3957-59, paras. 6-12 (describing efforts of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1666A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1666A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1666A2.txt
  • Rcd at 3969, para. 53. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49, 1.741-1.749. See id. at § 1.49. Item (e) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.743. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973, para. 50. See id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3968, para. 34; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20543, para. 15. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973-74, paras. 51, 54; see also id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3957-59, paras. 6-12 (describing efforts of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1857A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1857A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1857A2.txt
  • Rcd at 3969, para. 53. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49, 1.741-1.749. See id. at § 1.49. Item (e) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.743. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973, para. 50. See id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3968, para. 34; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20543, para. 15. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973-74, paras. 51, 54; see also id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3957-59, paras. 6-12 (describing efforts of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1893A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1893A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1893A2.txt
  • Rcd at 3969, para. 53. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49, 1.741-1.749. See id. at § 1.49. Item (e) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.743. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973, para. 50. See id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3968, para. 34; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20543, para. 15. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973-74, paras. 51, 54; see also id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3957-59, paras. 6-12 (describing efforts of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2357A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2357A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2357A2.txt
  • Rcd at 3969, para. 53. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49, 1.741-1.749. See id. at § 1.49. Item (e) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.743. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973, para. 50. See id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3968, para. 34; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20543, para. 15. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973-74, paras. 51, 54; see also id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3957-59, paras. 6-12 (describing efforts of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2438A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2438A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2438A2.txt
  • Rcd at 3969, para. 53. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49, 1.741-1.749. See id. at § 1.49. Item (e) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.743. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973, para. 50. See id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3968, para. 34; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20543, para. 15. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973-74, paras. 51, 54; see also id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3957-59, paras. 6-12 (describing efforts of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-684A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-684A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-684A1.txt
  • Rcd at 3969, para. 53. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49, 1.741-1.749. See id. at § 1.49. Item (e) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.743. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973, para. 50. See id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3968, para. 34; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20543, para. 15. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973-74, paras. 51, 54; see also id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3957-59, paras. 6-12 (describing efforts of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1019A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1019A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1019A2.txt
  • Rcd at 3969, para. 53. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49, 1.741-1.749. See id. at § 1.49. Item (e) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.743. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973, para. 50. See id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3968, para. 34; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20543, para. 15. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973-74, paras. 51, 54; see also id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3957-59, paras. 6-12 (describing efforts of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-125A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-125A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-125A2.txt
  • Rcd at 3969, para. 53. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49, 1.741-1.749. See id. at § 1.49. Item (e) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.743. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973, para. 50. See id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3968, para. 34; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20543, para. 15. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973-74, paras. 51, 54; see also id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3957-59, paras. 6-12 (describing efforts of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-156A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-156A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-156A2.txt
  • Rcd at 3969, para. 53. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49, 1.741-1.749. See id. at § 1.49. Item (e) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.743. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973, para. 50. See id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3968, para. 34; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20543, para. 15. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973-74, paras. 51, 54; see also id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3957-59, paras. 6-12 (describing efforts of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2039A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2039A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2039A2.txt
  • Rcd at 3969, para. 53. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49, 1.741-1.749. See id. at § 1.49. Item (e) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.743. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973, para. 50. See id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3968, para. 34; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20543, para. 15. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973-74, paras. 51, 54; see also id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3957-59, paras. 6-12 (describing efforts of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2344A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2344A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2344A2.txt
  • Rcd at 3969, para. 53. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49, 1.741-1.749. See id. at § 1.49. Item (e) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.743. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973, para. 50. See id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3968, para. 34; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20543, para. 15. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973-74, paras. 51, 54; see also id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3957-59, paras. 6-12 (describing efforts of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2799A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2799A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2799A2.txt
  • Rcd at 3969, para. 53. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49, 1.741-1.749. See id. at § 1.49. Item (e) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.743. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973, para. 50. See id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3968, para. 34; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20543, para. 15. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973-74, paras. 51, 54; see also id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3957-59, paras. 6-12 (describing efforts of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-92A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-92A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-92A2.txt
  • Rcd at 3969, para. 53. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49, 1.741-1.749. See id. at § 1.49. Item (e) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.743. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973, para. 50. See id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3968, para. 34; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20543, para. 15. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973-74, paras. 51, 54; see also id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3957-59, paras. 6-12 (describing efforts of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-671A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-671A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-671A1.txt
  • else on paper, including applications, exhibits, attachments, amendments and correspondence, you must submit the original and 3 copies. (e) Signing If you submit your application electronically, upon filing, you must print out the filed application, obtain the proper signatures, and keep the original for your files. If you submit a paper application, you must sign it in accordance with Section 1.743 of this chapter. You may conform all other copies. (f) You must pay the appropriate fee for your application and submit it in accordance with subpart G of part 1 of this chapter. 5. Amend Paragraph 25.114 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: §25.114 Applications for space station authorizations. * * * * * (b) Each application for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.txt
  • filing, the amount of fees, who may sign the application, and the number of copies required. Need: These rules provide general directions on where to file applications, the amount of fees, the number of copies and who may sign the application. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303. Section Number and Title: 1.742 Place of filing, fees, and number of copies. 1.743 Who may sign applications. Brief Description: The rules in part 1, subpart E, prescribe the procedures, format, and content of complaints, applications, tariffs, and reports involving common carriers. Section 1.773 sets forth the procedures for filing petitions and replies to petitions seeking investigation, suspension, or rejection of new tariff filings. Need: Sections 1.773(a)(2)(ii), 1.773(a)(4), and 1.773(b)(1)(ii) were adopted to adjust
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1456A1.txt
  • were to ignore the procedural defect and address the Petition on the merits, CHI fails to raise any arguments warranting reconsideration of the Mobility Division's decision. The arguments advanced by CHI relate to a private dispute over the control of CCI; specifically, whether Mr. Patel was authorized to sign and file the subject Application on behalf of CCI. Under section 1.743(a) of the Commission's rules, an officer, director, or duly authorized employee of a corporation is authorized to sign applications to the Commission on behalf of the corporation. Generally, corporations are bound by the statements and declarations made by their agents within the scope of their employment and with the actual or apparent authority of the corporation. The issue of whether
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1456A1_Rcd.pdf
  • were to ignore the procedural defect and address the Petition on the merits, CHI fails to raise any arguments warranting reconsideration of the Mobility Division's decision. The arguments advanced by CHI relate to a private dispute over the control of CCI; specifically, whether Mr. Patel was authorized to sign and file the subject Application on behalf of CCI. Under section 1.743(a) of the Commission's rules, an officer, director, or duly authorized employee of a corporation is authorized to sign applications to the Commission on behalf of the corporation.22Generally, corporations are bound by the statements and declarations made by their agents within the scope oftheir employment and with the actual or apparent authority of the corporation.23The issue of whether Mr. Patel's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-209A1.txt
  • the time, which policy rejected ``without recourse to nunc pro tunc acceptance, applications submitted without proper signature.'' The hard look policy, however, does not apply to applications for an NCE new station construction permit-the case here. In Schorsten, a cellular radio lottery case, the applicant was an individual whose attorney signed on his behalf. The case was decided under Section 1.743 of the Rules governing the circumstances under which attorneys may sign applications. It did not, as here, involve a certification by a corporate director. Moreover, Section 1.743 is inapplicable to the type of application at issue here. In both Phillips and Snyder, the Commission dismissed the applications because the certifying party was not an ``officer, director, or board member'' of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256267A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256267A1.txt
  • Total Number of Number of U.S. Carrier IMTS Resale Carrier Messages Minutes Revenues Revenues 3 Rivers Fiber Optics, Inc. 3 River Telephone Cooperative, Inc. 87,171 356,288 43,152 0.001% 24-7 Telcom 4,849 27,135 5,598 0.000 A.M.S. Voicecom Inc. 2,503,158 14,767,442 4,534,518 0.084 ABS-CBN Telecom North America, Inc. 1,032,747 13,890,629 3,194,845 0.059 Acceris Communications WorldxChange Corp. d/b/a Acceris Communications 30,543,468 374,294,057 94,449,331 1.743 Access Integrated Networks, Inc. 200,516 2,005,162 250,645 0.005 Access One, Inc.A54 3,733,510 6,222,516 746,702 0.014 Access Point, Inc. 1,189,132 4,795,500 1,105,454 0.020 Accxx Communications, LLC 166,768 1,123,460 143,968 0.003 Ace Telephone Association Ace Link Telecommunications, Inc. 2,719 19,767 3,445 0.000 ACN Communication Services, Inc. 1,539,591 13,517,800 7,689,985 0.142 Adams Tel Systems, Inc. 1,712 22,552 6,389 0.000 Adelphia Communications Corporation ACC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.txt
  • this part) which must accompany each application in order to qualify it for acceptance for filing and consideration are set forth in the rules in this chapter relating to various types of applications. However, if any application is not of the type covered by this chapter, an original and two copies of each such application shall be submitted. 48. Section 1.743 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: § 1.743 Who may sign applications. * * * * * (e) ``Signed,'' as used in this section, means an original handwritten signature, except that by public notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER the Wireline Competition Bureau may allow signature by any symbol executed or adopted by the applicant with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-97A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-97A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-97A1.txt
  • New Old New Philadelphia 1429.000 204.040 1842.000 215.323 413.000 11.283 28.901 5.5 30 Washington DC 1388.300 203.230 1765.000 212.977 376.700 9.747 27.134 4.796 New York 1323.600 58.249 1692.000 59.127 368.400 0.878 27.833 1.507 Boston 1156.800 115.091 1506.500 119.273 349.700 4.182 30.230 3.634 Nashville 1504.400 127.989 1850.100 131.459 345.700 3.470 22.979 2.711 Kansas City 1134.800 90.464 1329.700 92.041 194.900 1.577 17.175 1.743 Oklahoma City* 1182.000 925.122 1379.000 1051.000 197.000 125.878 16.667 13.607 Charlotte 692.100 156.056 779.300 160.409 87.200 4.353 12.599 2.789 Phoenix* 661.900 514.250 744.600 565.918 82.700 51.668 12.494 10.047 Seattle 689.000 233.658 765.300 244.440 76.300 10.782 11.074 4.614 Los Angeles 215.800 172.765 245.600 186.908 29.800 14.143 13.809 8.186 Denver 155.600 33.717 178.100 35.540 22.500 1.823 14.460 5.407 Note: All calculations done
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1997/fcc97330.html http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1997/fcc97330.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1997/fcc97330.wp
  • 489 U.S. 1078 (1989). 5. See 47 C.F.R. 1.49, 1.741-1.749. 6. See id. at 1.49. 7. Item (g) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). 8. See 47 C.F.R. 1.743. 9. We are increasing the page limit for initial comments from 50 pages to 100 pages in the expectation that parties will include all substantive arguments in their legal brief. We reiterate that the Commission may strike or decline to consider substantive arguments made only in affidavits or other supporting documentation. 10. See Application of Ameritech Michigan Pursuant to Section
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1999/da991994.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1999/da991994.html http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1999/da991994.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1999/da991994.txt
  • denied, 489 U.S. 1078 (1989). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49, 1.741-1.749. See id. at § 1.49. Item (g) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.743. The Commission expects that parties will include all substantive arguments in their legal brief. The Commission may strike or decline to consider substantive arguments made only in affidavits or other supporting documentation. See Application of Ameritech Michigan Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, To Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Michigan, CC Docket No. 97-137,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98281.pdf
  • federal government. 31 See Comments of NAB at 8; FCBA at 9; Independent Broadcast Consultants, Inc. at 6; CBS at 3-4. 32 See Comments of FCBA at 9 (expressing concern that elimination of signature requirement might lead to increase in unauthorized filings). 33 Procedures for Electronic Filing of Applications in the Private Radio Services, 9 FCC Rcd 174 (1994). Sections 1.743(e) and 1.913(e) of our rules currently permit electronic signatures for applications submitted to the Common Carrier and Wireless Telecommunications Bureaus. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.743(e) and 1.913(e). 34 The NAB opposes public access to electronically filed applications, contending that there is "a large security risk to the integrity of the application process if any individual has electronic access to any
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1998/fcc98056.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1998/fcc98056.wp
  • of all petitions, motions, pleadings, briefs, and other documents filed" FCC 98-56 Federal Communications Commission 30 12 FCC Rcd at 5154 n.15, citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.52. 31 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(h). 32 PCIA Comments at 3. 33 Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Comments at 4; Ameritech Comments at 2. We address security concerns infra at ¶¶ 14-18. 34 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.743(e) and 1.913(e). See also Amendment of Part 5 of the Commission's Rules to Revise the Experimental Radio Service Regulations, 11 FCC Rcd 20130, 20133 (1997) (proposing a new section 5.57(e) to accommodate signatures on electronically filed OET applications). 35 See Procedures for Electronic Filing of Applications in the Private Radio Services, 9 FCC Rcd 174 (1994). 36 SBC Comments at
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/04/releases/frao3253.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/04/releases/frao3253.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/04/releases/frao3253.wp
  • of the application involved, and may be sent directly to the Common Carrier Bureau, Broadband PCS Processing Section. (e) Except as otherwise specified, all applications, amendments, correspondence, pleadings and forms (including FCC Form 175) shall be submitted on one original paper copy and with three microfiche copies, including exhibits and attachments thereto, and shall be signed as prescribed by § 1.743. Filings of five pages or less are exempt from the requirement to submit on microfiche, as are emergency filings such as letters requesting special temporary authority. Those filing any amendments, correspondence, pleadings and forms must simultaneously submit the original hard copy which must be stamped 126 "original". In addition to the original hard copy, those filing pleadings, including pleadings under
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/11/releases/bip_def.pdf
  • of the application involved, and may be sent directly to the Common Carrier Bureau, Broadband PCS Processing Section. (e) Except as otherwise specified, all applications, amendments, correspondence, pleadings and forms (including FCC Form 175) shall be submitted on one original paper copy and with three microfiche copies, including exhibits and attachments thereto, and shall be signed as prescribed by § 1.743 of this Chapter. Filings of five pages or less are exempt from the requirement to submit on microfiche, as are emergency filings such as letters requesting special temporary authority. Those filing any amendments, correspondence, pleadings and forms must simultaneously submit the original hard copy which must be stamped "original". Abbreviations may be 125 used if they are easily understood. In
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/19/releases/fc950319.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/19/releases/fc950319.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/19/releases/fc950319.wp
  • application involved, and may be sent directly to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Washington, DC 20554, GWCS Processing Section. (e) Except as otherwise specified, all applications, amendments, correspondence, pleadings and forms (including FCC Form 175) shall be submitted on one original paper copy and with three microfiche copies, including exhibits and attachments thereto, and shall be signed as prescribed by § 1.743 of this chapter. Unless otherwise provided by the FCC, filings of five pages or less are exempt from the requirement to submit on microfiche, as well as emergency filings like letters requesting special temporary authority. Those filing any amendments, correspondence, pleadings, and forms must simultaneously submit the original hard copy which must be stamped "original". In addition to the original
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/26/releases/pagebp_g.pdf
  • Contain all information required by FCC rules or application forms; (d) Propose operation of a facility in compliance with all rules governing the Public Mobile service; (e) Be amended as necessary to remain substantially accurate and complete in all significant respects, in accordance with the provisions of § 1.65 of this chapter; and, (f) Be signed in accordance with § 1.743 of this chapter. § 22.131 Procedures for mutually exclusive applications. Two or more pending applications are mutually exclusive if the grant of one application would effectively preclude the grant of one or more of the others under Commission rules governing the Public Mobile Services involved. The Commission uses the general procedures in this section for processing mutually exclusive applications in
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1996/fcc96469.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1996/fcc96469.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1996/fcc96469.wp
  • 2. ^2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.49, 1.741-1.749. 3. ^3 See id. at 1.49. 4. ^4 Item (g) is obviously the core item of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). 5. ^5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.743. 6. ^6 See id. at 1.1200(a), 1.1206. 7. ^7 See id. at 1.1202, 1.1206(a). 8. ^8 See id. at 1.1206(a). 9. ^9 Cf. 1.1200(a)-(b); 1.1203. 10. ^10 On this last point, we note that the notice and comment and effective date provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act are not applicable to these procedural requirements and policies. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b),
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1997/fcc97330.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1997/fcc97330.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1997/fcc97330.wp
  • 489 U.S. 1078 (1989). 5. See 47 C.F.R. 1.49, 1.741-1.749. 6. See id. at 1.49. 7. Item (g) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). 8. See 47 C.F.R. 1.743. 9. We are increasing the page limit for initial comments from 50 pages to 100 pages in the expectation that parties will include all substantive arguments in their legal brief. We reiterate that the Commission may strike or decline to consider substantive arguments made only in affidavits or other supporting documentation. 10. See Application of Ameritech Michigan Pursuant to Section
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1999/da991994.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1999/da991994.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1999/da991994.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1999/da991994.txt
  • denied, 489 U.S. 1078 (1989). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49, 1.741-1.749. See id. at § 1.49. Item (g) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.743. The Commission expects that parties will include all substantive arguments in their legal brief. The Commission may strike or decline to consider substantive arguments made only in affidavits or other supporting documentation. See Application of Ameritech Michigan Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, To Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Michigan, CC Docket No. 97-137,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/2001/da010734.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/2001/da010734.txt
  • Rcd at 3969, para. 53. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49, 1.741-1.749. See id. at § 1.49. Item (e) is obviously the core portion of the Brief in Support, and may be quite lengthy. It may help to divide it, therefore, into three subsections, one corresponding to each of the three requirements set forth in section 271(d)(3). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.743. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973, para. 50. See id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3968, para. 34; Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20543, para. 15. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3973-74, paras. 51, 54; see also id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3957-59, paras. 6-12 (describing efforts of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/crepor03.pdf
  • Total Number of Number of U.S. Carrier IMTS Resale Carrier Messages Minutes Revenues Revenues 3 Rivers Fiber Optics, Inc. 3 River Telephone Cooperative, Inc. 87,171 356,288 43,152 0.001% 24-7 Telcom 4,849 27,135 5,598 0.000 A.M.S. Voicecom Inc. 2,503,158 14,767,442 4,534,518 0.084 ABS-CBN Telecom North America, Inc. 1,032,747 13,890,629 3,194,845 0.059 Acceris Communications WorldxChange Corp. d/b/a Acceris Communications 30,543,468 374,294,057 94,449,331 1.743 Access Integrated Networks, Inc. 200,516 2,005,162 250,645 0.005 Access One, Inc.A54 3,733,510 6,222,516 746,702 0.014 Access Point, Inc. 1,189,132 4,795,500 1,105,454 0.020 Accxx Communications, LLC 166,768 1,123,460 143,968 0.003 Ace Telephone Association Ace Link Telecommunications, Inc. 2,719 19,767 3,445 0.000 ACN Communication Services, Inc. 1,539,591 13,517,800 7,689,985 0.142 Adams Tel Systems, Inc. 1,712 22,552 6,389 0.000 Adelphia Communications Corporation ACC
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/97socc.pdf
  • HISTORICAL RATES AT YEAR END, 1980 THROUGH 1997 INTERSTATE MESSAGE TOLL TELEPHONE RATES (FIVE AND TEN MINUTE CALLS)--CONTINUED BETWEEN WASHINGTON, DC AND PHILADELPHIA, PA DETROIT, MI DALLAS AND HOUSTON, TX DAY EVENING NIGHT/WEEKEND DAY EVENING NIGHT/WEEKEND DAY EVENING NIGHT/WEEKEND DEC 31 FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN 1980AT&T 1.743.341.132.170.701.34 1.94 3.74 1.26 2.43 0.78 1.50 2.07 3.97 1.35 2.58 0.83 1.59 MCI 1.21 2.41 0.36 0.72 1.40 2.81 0.42 0.84 1.71 3.43 0.51 1.03 SPRINT 1.20 2.40 0.48 0.96 1.35 2.70 0.54 1.08 1.60 3.20 0.64 1.28 1981 AT&T 2.01 3.86 1.31 2.51 0.80 1.54 2.26 4.36 1.47 2.83 0.90 1.74 2.40 4.60 1.56 2.99 0.96 1.84 MCI 1.61
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/98SOCC.PDF
  • HISTORICAL RATES AT YEAR END, 1980 THROUGH 1998 INTERSTATE MESSAGE TOLL TELEPHONE RATES (FIVE AND TEN MINUTE CALLS)--CONTINUED BETWEEN WASHINGTON, DC AND PHILADELPHIA, PA DETROIT, MI DALLAS AND HOUSTON, TX DAY EVENING NIGHT/WEEKEND DAY EVENING NIGHT/WEEKEND DAY EVENING NIGHT/WEEKEND DEC 31 FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN 1980AT&T 1.743.341.132.170.701.34 1.94 3.74 1.26 2.43 0.78 1.50 2.07 3.97 1.35 2.58 0.83 1.59 MCI 1.21 2.41 0.36 0.72 1.40 2.81 0.42 0.84 1.71 3.43 0.51 1.03 SPRINT 1.20 2.40 0.48 0.96 1.35 2.70 0.54 1.08 1.60 3.20 0.64 1.28 1981 AT&T 2.01 3.86 1.31 2.51 0.80 1.54 2.26 4.36 1.47 2.83 0.90 1.74 2.40 4.60 1.56 2.99 0.96 1.84 MCI 1.61
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98281.pdf
  • federal government. 31 See Comments of NAB at 8; FCBA at 9; Independent Broadcast Consultants, Inc. at 6; CBS at 3-4. 32 See Comments of FCBA at 9 (expressing concern that elimination of signature requirement might lead to increase in unauthorized filings). 33 Procedures for Electronic Filing of Applications in the Private Radio Services, 9 FCC Rcd 174 (1994). Sections 1.743(e) and 1.913(e) of our rules currently permit electronic signatures for applications submitted to the Common Carrier and Wireless Telecommunications Bureaus. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.743(e) and 1.913(e). 34 The NAB opposes public access to electronically filed applications, contending that there is "a large security risk to the integrity of the application process if any individual has electronic access to any
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1998/fcc98056.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1998/fcc98056.wp
  • of all petitions, motions, pleadings, briefs, and other documents filed" FCC 98-56 Federal Communications Commission 30 12 FCC Rcd at 5154 n.15, citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.52. 31 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(h). 32 PCIA Comments at 3. 33 Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Comments at 4; Ameritech Comments at 2. We address security concerns infra at ¶¶ 14-18. 34 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.743(e) and 1.913(e). See also Amendment of Part 5 of the Commission's Rules to Revise the Experimental Radio Service Regulations, 11 FCC Rcd 20130, 20133 (1997) (proposing a new section 5.57(e) to accommodate signatures on electronically filed OET applications). 35 See Procedures for Electronic Filing of Applications in the Private Radio Services, 9 FCC Rcd 174 (1994). 36 SBC Comments at
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000473.doc
  • or remove uncertainty. The Commission has wide discretion within this framework to determine whether a Declaratory Ruling is necessary. The Commission generally does not have the expertise or resources to resolve questions of state or federal law outside its principal area of jurisdiction; as a result, it is generally more efficient to allow other forums to resolve such matters. Section 1.743(a) of the Commission's Rules requires applicants to sign their applications. When the applicant is a corporation, an officer or duly authorized employee must sign the application. Generally, corporations are bound by the statements and declarations made by its agents within the scope of their employment and with the actual or apparent authority of the corporation. We believe that a determination
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-209A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-209A1.pdf
  • the time, which policy rejected ``without recourse to nunc pro tunc acceptance, applications submitted without proper signature.'' The hard look policy, however, does not apply to applications for an NCE new station construction permit-the case here. In Schorsten, a cellular radio lottery case, the applicant was an individual whose attorney signed on his behalf. The case was decided under Section 1.743 of the Rules governing the circumstances under which attorneys may sign applications. It did not, as here, involve a certification by a corporate director. Moreover, Section 1.743 is inapplicable to the type of application at issue here. In both Phillips and Snyder, the Commission dismissed the applications because the certifying party was not an ``officer, director, or board member'' of
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/elec_eng.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/elec_eng.wp
  • cites to a number of provisions in the rules that purportedly required PCIA to return PageMart's applications and exclusivity request for additional signatures. For example, EEC draws our attention to section 90.131(a), which provides that "[e]ach amendment to an application shall be signed and submitted in the same manner as required for the original application." 47 C.F.R. 90.131(a); see also 1.743(a), 1.913(a). EEC also cites to a few cases before the Commission in which the FCC mentioned a signature requirement. See, e.g., R & L Broadcasters, 8 F.C.C.R. 7031, 7032 (1993); WMOZ, Inc., 36 F.C.C. 202, 218 (1964). In EEC's view, a change in frequency constitutes an amendment to the original application, and thus requires the coordinator to obtain an additional